If you were, you would be competant enough not to make some of the illogical arguments that you do.
It is a double edged sword, and no one here trusts you with sharp objects.
You have pointed to it several times just now too yet you can not support it in anyway shape or form. Yet we are supposed to just accept that?
I agree with RG: go yourself.
If you were, you would be competant enough not to make some of the illogical arguments that you do.
It is a double edged sword, and no one here trusts you with sharp objects.
First a bit of clarification, and a minor apology:
When I said you were "sidestepping" a question earlier, that was unfair. I have been meaning to get around to that. The conversation has been fast and one has to allow for things to be missed and not answered. I apologize for implying that you were avoiding answering it.
The answer to both questions is:
"I do not know"
I have only your word, and I am somewhat skeptical of that.
Now what?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 06:10 PM.
Really?
Please step me through this hypothical exercise.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 05:43 PM. Reason: backspace is your friend. civil is always better than not.
Is it?
You missed a couple:
3. With 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW.
4. People PhD's are more likely to be correct about theories within their field of study.
5. Is it possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage.
That is not an argumentum ad populum.
I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.
That is your implication. Not mine.
I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.
This also got ignored.
You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.
Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.
I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 07:33 AM.
Risk has two dimensions.
Probability and magnitude.
Statements of "possibility" on either side don't mean much. "anything is possible".
We have conflicting evidence where neither dimension is really nailed down to a great deal of certainty, but a good number of scientists and evidence indicating a potentially really bad outcome on a subject within their field of expertise, and some other scientists with evidence that it won't be so bad.
On a complex subject, one should expect uncertainty. This can be, and is managed all the time in business.
Good risk management dictates that you have to decide on a course of action when a risk exists.
"do nothing" is always an option.
"doing something" is always an option.
All options have costs.
Present a risk to any good CEO, and they will ask for available evidence. In this case, we get a lot of acrimonious finger pointing, and conflicting evidence.
So we take the worst case scenarios we can think of that are reasonably possible, based on this, and run with that.
Where does that lead?
I like to think so.
Call me an optimist.
I believe its the proper course initially however i am about done with this phase with this guy.
I get tired of the moved goal posts, deflections, bait and switch, responses that do not address the argument, blanket dismissals, semantic tap dancing, sophistry, circular logic, claims of being beyond reproach, etc.
It would seem that you are implying there is no AGW, because the people studying it, and believe it to be the case, use a computer that is powered by electricity that ultimately emits greenhouse gases in its generation.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0PPPxmQF3
Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters
[pictures omitted for brevity]
Is this what you are trying to say?
I would eventually like some clarification, just so I can understand your post. It was a bit unclear to me exactly what you were shooting for.
I like him. He is new and shiny.
... and about as smart as I am, if not more so.
Therein lies the challenge.
I have been too busy with my own exchanges to keep up with yours.
Remember the stated intent of this thread. [yeah, the word choice is deliberate] The same thing that lets him compile his list, lets me compile mine, and I have some good fodder from him already.
No. Your irony detector sucks, btw.
General Beringer: Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks.
McKittrick: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of .
General Beringer: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.
Omg computers use a lot of power!!!
In other news, water is wet!!!
You came to this conclusion based on a broad overview of how well the computer modeling at that facility has done, right? I mean of course you did, why am I even asking? You are an intellectually honest individual who makes informed decisions and doesn't ever jump to conclusions. Ever.
It was not the U.S.C.R.
Just because other countries we are allied with have socialized healthcare does not make their healthcare policy any less socialist. Teddy Roosevelt was not a conservative but a progressive (hint: he created the Progressive Party and ran as a progressive). You are parroting political propaganda taught in public schools. Many of his policies reflected socialist ideals, including trust busting.
I was equating the "far side of" with extreme and support for "socialized medicine" and "social justice" with socialist.
They usually don't but that does not make libertarians left-wing. Nor is the right defined only by GOP evangelicals, though I am well aware people such as yourself falsely believe this nonsense.
It is not as big as the entire article, which includes the quotes and sources not the snippet for the main page.
Even if they try to claim ignorance on what is available, my list exists and they are well aware of this. Thus, they cherry picked papers that support skeptic arguments from the hundreds that are available. You can at anytime prove me wrong and demonstrate that all the papers on my list are on theirs. The failure of them to include all of the papers on their list means they have no interest in intellectual honesty in presenting both sides of the argument. Why are you using a site that is intellectually dishonest?
The papers where particular data is used are very small such as the section where CO2 lags temperature changes and the quoted data is clearly provided. That is called using a peer-reviewed paper to support your argument.
No paper is listed where the research data is concluded as evidence of AGW and found by the authors to be alarming.
I am doing no such thing. What I did do was discredit the argument that the Skeptical Science page includes all of the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments.
I do not understand the first part of this statement. It took sometime for my account to be approved so I was unable to comment earlier. The age of any misinformation I locate does not deter me from attempting to correct it.
You have demonstrated no such thing. Though "hacker" could be applied.
I just thought it was funny that their giant computer predicted drought and it was the wettest April in 100 years.
The fact that it has a ginormous carbon footprint bothers me not. That's what you guys worry about.
Years ago I saw Roger Ebert's review of An Inconvenient Truth where he showed the clip of Al Gore stating,
"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people." - Al Gore
Ebert repeated this as the piece of evidence that convinced him. I of course was skeptical of a politician arguing a scientific position and implying there was zero scientific doubt about this position. I almost immediately found this was not true and began compiling these papers when I could not find such a resource online. Later, a combination of my working list being copied without my permission with false authorship assigned and getting tired of effectively being told or reading charges online that these papers do not exist did I get serious about publishing it as an article. Thus the intent was always to demonstrate these papers exist and provide a resource for skeptics.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-01-2012 at 10:52 PM.
So now you don't think think the computer sucks?
Really? How many of us were worried about it?
Ok, that was civil, and refreshing.
Thank you very much.
That removes any doubt I had about your original intent.
That still leaves us with what to do about the wider issue of AGW.
How do you feel about people who might think that list was the only valid science on the subject?
You do realize that, in pointing this out without being a bit more explicit, it could be interpreted to imply that AGW is false because some of the people researching the subject use a lot of energy?
I realize you were attempting to be ironic. I just wanted some clarity as to your point.
Don't blame me if you can't make yourself clear.
Ok, Poptech here is a statement.
Since you have obviously read a lot of papers, I will trust that you have seen enough of the data to evaluate the following statement:
"there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate. "
Is there such proof? or alternately is there some evidence to this effect?
The computer is fine. Their model sucks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions